- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3456 CRL.RP No. 200006 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 200006 OF 2019 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: RAVINDRA S/O DILIP KADABANE AGE:34 YRS, OCCU:DRIVER, R/O KHALAD VILLAGE, TQ.PURANDAR DIST.PUNE-412 305 MAHARASHTRA STATE …PETITIONER (BY SRI. R S LAGALI, ADV.) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH THE PSI., MUDDEBIHAL PS. REP BY THE ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI – 585 102 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. HCGP,ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO, a) ADMIT THE REVISION PETITION AND CALL FOR RECORDS. b) SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT & ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 23.04.2015 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, VIJAYAPURA, IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.18/2013 IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER & THEREBY CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT & ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED:04.03.2013 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC., COURT, MUDDEBIHAL IN C.C.NO.103/2010 & ACQUIT THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC. 279, 304A, OF IPC, & SEC. 187 OF MV ACT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3456 CRL.RP No. 200006 of 2019 THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 20.03.2025 AT KALABURAGI BENCH AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL BENCH AT BENGALURU, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CAV ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH) The petitioner is before this Court seeking to set aside the concurrent findings of the Courts below and recording the conviction for the offences punishable under Section 279, 304A of IPC along with Section 134 of Motor Vehicles Act. 2. The ranks of the parties henceforth will be considered as per their rankings before the Trial Court, for convenience. Factual matrix of the case: 3. The complainant being a resident of Araladinni village of Basavana Bagevadi Taluk was working in the welding shop, namely, Rakesh Welding Works situated abutting to NH- 13. On 09.02.2010, at about 1.00 P.M., the complainant on his bike had been to Hosamani Petrol Bunk situated abutting to NH-13. After having got the petrol filled, he was about to - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3456 CRL.RP No. 200006 of 2019 proceed further. At that time, he is stated to have noticed one truck came from Alamatti in a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner dashed to Tum Tum autorikshaw which was coming from the opposite direction. The said Tum Tum autorikshaw dashed Indica Car which was coming from its behind and immediately, the complainant noticed that the owner cum driver of the said Tum Tum autorikshaw, namely, Prakash Bhavikatti succumbed to the injuries and his mother- in-law, namely, Gundavva W/o Ashok Kumbar succumbed to the injuries. The inmates of the car fled away, anticipating the threat. The driver and cleaner of the said truck also ran away from the spot. The complainant called an Ambulance and shifted the injured to the hospital. Thereafter, he lodges a complaint against the truck driver. The respondent-Police after having registered a case, conducted investigation and submitted the charge-sheet. 4. The prosecution in order to prove his case, examined 09 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.9 and got marked 12 documents Ex-P.1 to P.12. The Trial Court recorded the conviction against the accused for the offences stated supra. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused has preferred an - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3456 CRL.RP No. 200006 of 2019 appeal before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court dismissed the appeal by upholding the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court. 5. Heard Sri.R.S.Lagali, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Jamadar Shahabuddin, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent. 6. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the findings of the Trial Court in recording the conviction and its confirmation order passed by the Appellate Court are perverse, erroneous and illegal. Therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. 7. It is further submitted that, even though P.W.1 and P.W.2 are stated to be the eye-witnesses to the incident, the rash and negligent driving of the driver as alleged by them cannot be believable for the reason that both were not present at the time of the incident. However, they had gone to the spot after the incident. 8. It is further stated that, at the time they reached the spot, they did not notice either the driver or cleaner of the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3456 CRL.RP No. 200006 of 2019 truck. Therefore, the evidence of these two witnesses ought not to have been considered by the Courts below. 9. It is further submitted that, the owner of the truck, who is examined as P.W.5 has not stated about the driver. Such being the case, implicating the accused to the case and recording the conviction is bad in law. Hence, the findings of the Courts below in recording the conviction are liable to be set aside. Making such submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the appeal. 10. Per Contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently justified the findings of the Courts below in recording the conviction of the accused and he further submitted that the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 are reliable and believable for the reason that they are the independent witnesses. As per the averments of the Truck which was being driven by the accused, had hit the Tum Tum autorikshaw vehemently. Thereafter, the said Tum Tum autorikshaw vehicle hit the Tata Indica Car. Consequently, two persons were died and several persons were injured in the said incident. Some of the eye-witnesses, namely, P.W.6 and P.W.7 have supported the case of the prosecution. Such being the fact, the finding of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3456 CRL.RP No. 200006 of 2019 the Courts below in recording the conviction is appropriate and it is not proper to interfere with the said findings. Making such submissions, the learned High Court Government Pleader for State, prays to reject the petition. 11. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the Courts below in recording the conviction, it is appropriate at this juncture to have a cursory look on the evidence of all the witnesses for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether both the Courts have committed any error in recording the conviction 12. P.W.1 is stated to be the eye-witness of the incident has deposed in his evidence that he had witnessed the accident. Further, he deposed that he had been to the spot where the accident had occurred. However, he did not notice the driver of the truck. Similarly, P.W.2 was running a shop near the National Highway, also stated that he had affixed his signature on the inquest panchanama, which is marked as Ex- P.2. He supported the case of the prosecution. P.W.3 was working in the petrol bunk situated near NH-13, stated in his evidence that, the truck came in high speed dashed the Tum Tum autorikshaw vehicle and thereafter, the said truck turned - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3456 CRL.RP No. 200006 of 2019 turtle, the fact remains that, none of the witnesses have spoken about the identity of the accused. Similarly, P.W.4, who was also worker of the petrol bunk, also supported the case. However, the prosecution treated him as hostile and conducted cross-examination, nothing has been elicited to support the case of the prosecution. 13. P.W.5 , who is stated to be the owner of the truck which allegedly caused the accident. However, he did not mention the name of the accused or he did not state about the accused that, the said accused was working as a driver with him, though he has been treated as hostile and conducted cross-examination, nothing has been elicited to support the case of the prosecution. 14. Similarly, the other two witnesses, namely, P.W.6 who was stated to be the driver of the Indica Car deposed in his evidence that a truck came with high speed and caused accident to the Tum Tum autorikshaw vehicle and thereafter, dashed to his Indica Car. He deposed that he had not sustained any injuries in the said incident. However, he also not noticed the driver of the truck. P.W.7 being the owner of the Indica Car stated that he has received an information regarding the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3456 CRL.RP No. 200006 of 2019 accident from P.W.6. He went to the spot, however, he did not notice the driver of the truck. 15. On over all reading of the evidence of all these witnesses, it cannot be inferred that, the witnesses have identified the accused. Such being the fact, the findings of the Courts below that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt is erroneous and perverse. Therefore, interference with the said findings is justified. 16. In the light of the observations made above, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The revision petition is allowed. ii. The judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 04.03.2013 in C.C.No.103/2010 on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC, Muddebihal and the judgment and order dated 23.04.2015 in Crl.A.18/2013 on the file of I Additional Sessions Judge, Vijayapura, are set aside. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3456 CRL.RP No. 200006 of 2019 iii. The petitioner/accused is acquitted for the offences under Sections 279, 304A of IPC and Sections 134 of Indian Motor Vehicles Act. iv. The bail bonds executed, if any, stands cancelled. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE NM List No.: 19 Sl No.: 2